“Kali-yuga is advancing!” – this is a very common jargon among the devotees. Here in this text we will show how far things have come.
This is a matter of total gravity. The objective is to warn of the great danger that surrounds the families of good people today, especially the families of Krishna devotees. It is important that we are well aware and informed of the seriousness of the situation, in order to defend our values and save our children and grandchildren. Don't think that the idea of destroying the family comes only from crazy, libertine, angry, inconsequential, degenerate or terrorist people. Not. The strategy of destroying the family is supported by highly regarded intellectuals and highly respected institutions in materialistic society. The issue is very serious because the clothing is always attractive and covered in academic language. It is easy to attract teenagers and young people.
Undermining the authority of the family is a key topic of the progressive agenda, which permeates the minds of many young people and even adults who follow directly or indirectly the booklet with socialist values. That means it has a strong political apparatus behind it. Progressive people will never give up. Everything is done in the name of postmodernity and new customs. The situation is more critical in relation to young people, especially university students, as they are more vulnerable and more open to new trends in society.
We show here, in a chronological sequence, how this idea has evolved. Through historical data, we can see, in this article, how everything is interconnected: population control, abortion, feminism, gender ideology, globalism, world government, UN, cultural Marxism, drug liberation, etc.
So there's this alert
This article is the author's personal opinion. I feel it is my duty to pass this information on to the Vaishnava community. I hope everyone has an open mind and can properly appreciate the importance of this warning.
We start with Marx's ideas
In 1848, along with Friedrich Engels, Carl Marx drafted the Communist Manifesto, whose communist proposal was to abolish private property to promote classless equality. A society of equals was an ideal that came from the French Revolution (1789). Towards the end of his life, Marx began to understand that he could not extinguish private property as long as the institution of the family remained solid, for, naturally, a father always sought to expand his property to leave an inheritance to his children and, thus, private property. was perpetuated.
In order to form a classless society and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, two things would then have to be extinguished: the family and religion. Religion provides the ethical and spiritual foundation for families. The natural authority of the family over its dependents and the authority of religion over the faithful clash with the authority of an authoritarian state. Hence the commitment for these two institutions to be extirpated.
Shortly after Marx's death, Engels finished a work that had remained unfinished. In 1884, he published the book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. It says: “the first class antagonism that appeared in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman, in monogamy; and the first class oppression, with the oppression of the female by the male”. For Marxism, the family is oppressive by nature – it is the origin of all antagonisms and all class oppressions.
Marx/Engels regarded capitalism as an oppressive economic regime. And the oppression that the capitalists inflicted on the working class was present, in germ, within the family. For them, the institution of the family is perverse and would be the origin of all social inequality. According to the communist idea, the same way the capitalist oppresses the workers, a father, within the family, does the same with his wife and children. This is the infamous patriarchal model.
To justify oppression in the family, Engels drew on the theory of the American anthropologist Lewis Morgan (1818-81) about primitive society. His theory was that in the early days the institution of the family did not exist. Sex was widespread. In this condition, the children did not know who the father would be. The woman had a much more important role than the man, as she controlled and maintained her sons and daughters. It was a matriarchal society.
Things were drastically reversed when the man, using his physical strength, began to demand fidelity from his females and, with that, he became the owner of women and children. He enslaves the woman and condemns her to monogamous sex, and takes possession of her children. From this oppressive act, the institution of the family is born. Then comes the State and regularizes this family nucleus.
This theory of Lewis Morgan's is just a fiction, without any historical or anthropological record. But amazingly, even today, there are some followers of the socialist booklet who piously believe in this story, considered the root of inequality and oppression.
Later, Lenin (1870-1924) fully adopted Engels' ideas and bet on the armed class struggle. He argued that the ultimate purpose of socialism would be to create equality, not only between classes, but above all between people. For that, it would be imperative to destroy the concept of family.
It is pertinent to say that, within the communist regime, the idea of destroying the family was only valid for the “people”, since the elite of the bureaucratic oligarchy of the Communist Party maintained their numerous families with all the perks, privileges and security.
Comment: At the end of the first world war (1914-18) it was found that the struggle of the working class (proletariat) against the bourgeoisie would never take place. The hope of communism was that, during the war period, the proletarians (soldiers) of different nations would unite against the constituted bourgeois leaders and thus establish a single communist nation. But that didn't happen. The soldiers remained loyal to the command, imbued with the duty of defending their own homeland. Furthermore, what is demonstrated is the natural desire of many workers to ascend socially to the bourgeoisie. Many do not want to remain workers all their lives. They want to have their own business and be independent. Therefore, the idea of a revolution through class struggle was considered unfeasible and ultimately discarded. The strategy had to be changed so that the communist revolution could continue.
Two strategies were then adopted: 1) Gradual increase in tax rates to increasingly stifle private property and free enterprise, and make people more and more dependent on the State (dictatorship of the proletariat and single party). 2) Occupation in education through the indoctrination of Marxist ideology at all levels.
As we have shown in previous writings, the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) left an extensive legacy of instructions in his "Prison Notebooks" on the infiltration of cultural Marxism in society. His strategy was the theory of space occupation. From indoctrination in universities, militancy should infiltrate the most diverse activities of society, such as the artistic environment, media, unions, politics, the judiciary, NGOs, the religious environment, elementary and high schools, etc. . This was a really successful strategy, especially here in our country.
Comment: With the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the collapse of the Soviet Union (1991), it seemed that communism would go into extinction. Interestingly, the Soviet Union succumbed without a single shot or drop of blood. It was imploded by the communist economy itself, totally controlled by the state. Long before, the famous Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) had predicted this. It is not by chance that China, upon seeing this phenomenon, opened its economy to the market.
Communism/Socialism Among Us
Definitely, communism is not dead. On the contrary, it is more alive than ever. What has changed is the outfit and the method. The mindset is the same. In fact, communism takes different versions in different situations and places. To think that communism boils down to class struggle and state control of the means of production is to be totally out of date. Apparently, we will not find, nowadays, the 'gulags', concentration camps from the Stalin era (1878-1953). However, communist ideas are spreading all over the world, even in traditionally capitalist countries such as the United States.
Today, anyone, even in an open society like ours, can be an agent of international socialism. Gramsci called this activist an organic intellectual. It is enough to be a teacher who, from time to time, indoctrinates his captive audience, the students, stigmatizing capitalism or glorifying Che Guevara. Or, a ruler of a non-communist country who finances works in a communist country. Or a metacapitalist, like George Soros, who finances an MST or some NGO with a socialist bias.
Nowadays, instead of communism, the term socialism is used, which is lighter and more palatable, since the term communism is stigmatized by the genocide of a hundred million victims, in a few regions of this planet. In Ukraine alone, the local holocaust, holodomor, claimed the lives of twelve million people, dying of hunger, as the communist dictatorship forcibly confiscated all agricultural production down to the last grain, leaving the entire population to starve. In Mao's China, the numbers are much higher: seventy million also condemned to death by starvation during the ill-fated cultural revolution. Communism has been far more lethal than Nazism, another great genocide of humanity that sent six million people to the gas chambers. Both genocides are of demonic inhumanity.
What is not understood is that, while Nazism is, quite rightly, totally execrated by society in general, in the case of communism there is a certain leniency on the part of a significant portion of people from sectors of society, notably from the academic, political, trade union, artistic and media. Given the magnitude of crimes against humanity, it is unacceptable that we have among us an explicit communist party (PC do Brazil), as well as half a dozen others camouflaged behind the acronym socialism.
It is worth noting that socialism is an international movement. Bearing in mind that in socialist demonstrations, unlike democratic demonstrations, neither the country's flag nor the national anthem are seen, but red flags with the international hammer and sickle symbol. The massive membership of young people proves that Gramsci's cultural Marxism was victorious here. Many even know the anthem of the Socialist International by heart. This is an interesting social phenomenon, the result of years in which this ideology has been ostensibly indoctrinated in academia. How to understand that a young libertine is attracted to a totalitarian regime? Honestly, I can't understand.
Comment: Today we are witnessing a very curious phenomenon in global terms: Entrepreneurs, mainly in the field of big technology and global financial speculation, who rose within the market economy and reached the status of billionaires, no longer they want to submit to the rules of the market and associate with those who exercise power without submitting to democratic scrutiny and freedom of opinion. It is the power of money associated with the power of domination. Modern times.
Returning to the family problem
Regimes in which there is freedom of opinion, freedom to come and go, freedom of worship and respect for citizens' rights consider the family as the mother cell of society. So far, it has become clear that totalitarian regimes try by all means to undermine the authority of the family, thereby increasing the state's control over citizens. For example, in China, for many years, the government imposed that the couple could only have one son or daughter. If there was more than one child, there would be terrible sanctions. When a girl was born, many opted for abortion, because a son could better guarantee the couple's old age in a country lacking social assistance. On the other hand, a daughter, upon marrying, would become part of her husband's family. After years of extensive abortions, an imbalance was created between the male and female class, to the point of having to import girls from poor countries to marry the growing male population.
Here in Brazil, politicians with a socialist bias have already managed to introduce some laws to curtail the authority of the family. The obligation for parents to enroll four-year-olds in school is an example. The idea is to remove the child as early as possible from parental guidance, to begin being indoctrinated by the State. Another action against the family is the reluctance to allow homeschooling, homeschooling. Another aberration is the law of spanking. To prevent violence against defenseless children, the penal code already exists and the penalty is harsh. In my case, my mom was super strict and I was rebellious and up to no good. She corrected me, sometimes with a belt in her hand. I have always considered that she acted out of love and a desire to make me a well-educated person. I am eternally grateful to her.
In Russia, in the early thirties, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution, as in any totalitarian regime, citizens were encouraged to denounce those who did not agree with the regime. A thirteen-year-old boy, Pavlik Morosov, a communist enthusiast, denounced his own father who did not agree with the dictatorial regime. His father was sent to a concentration camp and was never seen again. Some relatives of this boy-snitch revolted and murdered him. Pavlik Morosov then became a national icon, a martyr to the revolution.
Some facts that influenced contemporary behavior
In 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation was created with philanthropic intentions in research in the areas of health and education. The following year, the first world war began, which lasted four years. The world is in crisis. This foundation funded the first social engineering institute to research human behavior.
In 1917, the revolution took place in Russia, which promised the establishment of paradise on Earth. Apart from the radical political and economic reforms of the revolution, based on Marx's Communist Manifesto and Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, there was a total reformulation of family law, in the light of the new revolutionary movement. : total equality between men and women, facilities for obtaining a divorce for both men and women, freedom of abortion, etc. A feminist of the time, Alexandra Kollontal wrote an influential book: Sexual Relations and Class Struggle. The result of this ‘opening’ was tragic: due to equality between men and women, men rushed to ask for a divorce and were not obliged to pay child support. Women were left totally helpless and an epidemic spread to millions of street children. This picture was only reversed in 1936, when Stalin came to power.
In Germany, in 1924, the Frankfurt School for social research was created. Among the group of intellectuals that made up the organization, we highlight Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse. All were Marxists, but did not participate in any political movement. They were simply philosophers. With the rise of Nazism, everyone moved to the United States. They developed the dialectic of critical theory. They criticized everything. The proposal was to shake the structure of the oppressive bourgeois society. Many of the criticisms were valid, but the idea was to destroy all the achievements of society to, after everything destroyed, emerge a more egalitarian, liberal and peaceful society. A completely unfounded utopia. The family, specifically, was seen as an oppressive fascist nucleus that needed to be destroyed.
Comment: This critical theory occupies the ideology of today's youth. Everything is criticized, as if criticism were a sign of intelligence. Those who criticize think themselves intelligent for the simple fact of criticizing. Think about it. As for finding solutions, “ah… that's not my thing”.
In the twenties, in the United States, the Rockefeller Foundation invested in sex education. It funded a nurse, Margaret Sanger, who wrote a best-selling book, Birth Control, concerned about the planet's overpopulation. This gave the green light to a rampant wave of abortions.
Still under the destructive effects of the First World War, the book Prevention of War was published in 1923, in which he warned that all efforts should be centered on world peace. The Rockefeller Foundation was also involved in this endeavor, which invested in behavioral research. The final conclusion was that a world government should be created, which would be a mediator between the nations.
In 1933, still worried about a new war, the Rockefeller Foundation invests in research to create a superior human race through human cloning. They were trying to discover the existence of an aggression gene to stop wars.
In 1936, the Ford Foundation was created. At first it was small, but it expanded to become the largest of the foundations. Years later, he created the Behavioral Science Laboratory, concerned with demographic expansion. In the 1970s, this foundation created Women's Studies. In the 1990s, the foundation expanded its studies to the issue of gender. It is said that we would not have gender ideology today if it were not for the Ford Foundation.
Still in the thirties
In 1936, the Frankfurt School, already based in the United States, launched a collection of essays called Studies on Authority and the Family, always aiming at the destruction of the family. In the initial essay, the institution's president, Horkheimer, emphasizes the oppressive character of the family and suggests the legitimacy of incest. This is not a new fact, for the entire Marxist tradition deals with incest in these terms.
Please see the following video on Youtube, title: Deputy Érika Kokay from PT/DF - The End of the Family and Incest. (the video is in portuguese, but you can easily put subtitles in your language directly from the youtube controls)
Also in 1936, psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957), a Marxist and student of Freud, released the book The Sexual Revolution, which is still a reference in academic circles. He argues that restrictive sex education is oppressive and causes neuroses and psychoses. For him, the evolution of society is not a social phenomenon, but a sexual one. In his best-selling book, Reich makes an open apology for pedophilia. He was the first of the great intellectuals to openly defend pedophilia. Others later followed. He died crazy.
Comment: In this article, we cite some works by famous authors, such as Reich himself, and components of the Frankfurt School, such as Theodor Adorno, Marcuse, and others, who are adopted and studied in universities. In many cases, the author deals with pertinent subjects in ninety-five percent of his work, but there is poison in the five percent. These authors have criticized many things worthy of criticism, but they have poured venom in promoting abortion, pedophilia, destruction of the family, etc. Many readers are seduced by the author's intellectual capacity and do not take into account this five percent (which can be much more). Some are even outraged: “How dare you criticize such a great famous personality?!” In this regard, Prabhupada has instructed us that in the search for truth, we have to walk the “razor's edge”. We cannot compromise with iniquities.
The forties and after the war
In 1942, in the United States, was founded by the nurse mentioned here, Margaret Sanger, the IPPF - International Planed Parenthood Federation, a powerful global NGO with the general objectives of promoting sexual and reproductive health (euphemism for abortion) and defending the rights individuals to make their own family planning choices. A book that describes the activities of this international NGO claims that it is a multinational of death, a true abortion 'industry', with the aberration of commercializing the organs of aborted babies for the cosmetics and even vaccines industry!
In 1945, the Second World War ends and the big news is the creation, in New York, of the United Nations - UN, bulwark of the ideas of a global government. That's where the progressive ideas that have directly influenced and manipulated our legislators come from. The propagators of the progressive agenda tirelessly try to introduce and make official the new customs, such as abortion, gender ideology, drug liberation, child sexualization, etc., among us. All this agenda is, in fact, imported material that arrives here properly processed, with the UN 'seal'. Thanks to the more conservative caucus in Congress, many of these proposals have not prospered among us.
Around 1947, the American biologist Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) created the Sex Research Institute. He dedicated his life to sex. It was the largest survey of human sexuality and was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. He defended the legitimization of any and all sexual impulses, even the most absurd ones. He published the famous Kinsey reports in two voluminous books: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. His research involved thousands and thousands of men and women. He recorded the most bizarre forms of sex, involving prostitutes, pedophiles, degraded people of all ages, including experiments on babies and animals. He himself practiced these experiments, even within his family. Kinsey was fanatical about data and statistics, which gave his sexual experiments a scientific slant of respectability. Therefore, his work was appreciated in academic circles and spread around the world, being adopted as a reference for sex education in schools. Which is complete nonsense.
Nowadays, certain graduate theses defend absurdities such as the following: There are pedophiles who abuse, but there are also pedophiles who love. This is a patient who needs care. It is not a moral problem and therefore cannot be criminalized. And if he has the child's consent, what's the problem? This is how everything is relativized.
The phase of radical feminism
We show here the main propagators of a different feminism from the one that fought for the equal rights of women. Radical feminism is exclusively based on issues related to the body: “my body my rules”. This radicalism has influenced millions of women, as well as men, around the world.
Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86) – Around 1948, this writer, trained in philosophy, wrote several books, including The Second Sex. In it we find: "Like the meaning of our lives, gender is not predestined." And the famous phrase: "No one is born a woman: she becomes a woman." Her book provided a new language for discussing feminist theory. She is the great icon of feminists. But her life was marred by allegations of sexual abuse with her students. Two of them wrote books that show how they were drawn to and even became partners with Simone, the Marxist existentialist philosopher and atheist Jean Paul Sartre. Asked once by Betty Frieden if women could have the right to choose to stay at home and raise their children, the writer replied, "Women shouldn't have that choice, because if that possibility really exists, too many women take advantage of such a right.
In 1963, feminist activist Betty Friedan published the book Mystique Feminine, the book that inspired the American women's revolt. She had a lot of influence in the media. She defended the insertion of women in the labor market and the division of domestic tasks with men. She organized several women's marches in various American cities. As she couldn't help but be, she helped found the National Association for the Repeal of Anti Abortion Laws.
Kate Millet, one of the most radical feminists. Her sister, in an interview after her death, spoke of Kate's destructive feminist heritage, which defined her as having insane behavior. She wrote a few books, the main one being Sexual Politics (1969). She states: “There is no difference between the sexes at birth. The psychosexual personality is therefore something learned after birth.
Shulamith Firestone (1945-2012), this, without a doubt, the most radical feminist. His best-selling book: The Dialectic of Sex. According to Firestone, the essence of women's oppression is motherhood and the education of children. It was against marriage, motherhood, family. Asked how procreation would take place, she said: “let it be done in a laboratory”. She advocated abortion, pedophilia, incest and all possible types of “family”. As for gender, she said that there is no fixed gender identity. That would be a form of social control. A person can construct their gender identity at will. “I can be whatever I want at any time,” she said. “There is no being, there is only being”. It is really a denial of reality. The new feminism wants to eliminate the biological family. This means that radical feminists want children to live without a family, to prevent children from growing up perceiving humanity divided into two classes and – according to her – unequal.
Comment: It was the time when the feminist movement fought for equal opportunities and women's rights. Now, it all boils down to one word: “abortion”. And, for the most radical, the destruction of the family. As we can see, the feminist movement does not represent the overwhelming majority of women, who value the family. Today, the feminist movement exclusively defends the interests of radical feminists. They are completely against women who want to have children and a home life. Supporters of the radical feminist position believe that desired abortion, contraception, complete sexual freedom, women's work outside the home, and children's stays in state-supported day care are necessary conditions for women's liberation.
Change of Mindset
A milestone in the change in women's mentality was the intellectual work of the American sociologist Kingsley Davis, an expert in population control. The expression population explosion is his own. His best-selling book, Human Society, had been published in 1948. In the 1960s, using social engineering, he declared: “Everything that was designed to contain the population explosion was thwarted: abortion, birth control pills, the gender agenda, condoms, same-sex relationships, all this has not been working, as women do not stop having children and the world population is increasing. We now have to change the strategy: we have to change the behavior and values of women so that they don't want to have more children. We have to change the social structure. Women have to loosen strong family ties. We have to inoculate women's hearts with the idea that they shouldn't stay at home. They must enter the job market with everything. That's the only way they don't want more kids." From these ideas, a campaign with strong propaganda was unleashed. A real revolution. We can see how social engineering works. The conclusion is that changes in society's behavior do not happen spontaneously, everything is manipulated.
It is interesting to note the evolution of the euphemism: at first, there was talk of population control; then, to be more personal, family planning; planning gave the notion of control, so it is better to refer to women's reproductive rights; finally, to appeal with the person's greatest concern, reproductive health. All this has only one meaning: abortion.
Around that time, all the major foundations began to spread reproductive health around the world: Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, George Soros' Open Society, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. 1973 - Abortion is legalized in the United States.
Gender Ideology
In 1990, Judith Butler launched the foundations of gender ideology and queer theory in the academic circuit and the general public in her famous book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. She states: “Women should no longer be the object of the feminist movement – the object is now gender. Gender is a tool for deconstructing identity”. Gender identity indicates whether a person feels male or female. When questioning the sex/gender distinction and questioning why the subject of feminism is 'women', Butler pointed to the so-called compulsory heterosexuality imposed by the regulatory bodies of power, that is, by the hegemonic discourse. In this way, it aimed to pave the way for a variable construction of identity, which would include not only lesbians but also transsexuals and intersex people.
While feminist theories have always worked with the category 'woman/women', which would be the subject they sought to promote and to which they sought to give visibility and political force, Judith Butler called this category into question, stating that this subject can no longer be conceived 'in stable or permanent terms', that is, this is in the past. The issue now is to focus on LGBTQIA+ minorities. In short, gender ideology even transcends radical feminism. This is postmodernity.
Comment: The ideology of gender changed the priority of the feminist movement from being the political struggle, which discriminated against women, to a struggle to combat ideas that highlighted the differences between women and men and emphasized the main role of women in the political sphere. educational-caretaker. From then on, there is no longer the right of the family, but of the families. Any relationship, no matter how bizarre, is considered “family”. When anything is family – nothing else is family. This is the reality today. The traditional concept of the family in which a man and a woman come together to produce children is regarded as an anachronism. Today, many heterosexual couples have abolished the sacred duty to bear children. What is at stake is human nature itself. Post-modernity, or as devotees say: Kali-yuga.
The Global Government
Let us now appreciate the UN interventions to destabilize the traditional family. Since 1974, the UN has sponsored four conferences on women: the one in Mexico City in 1975, the one in Copenhagen in 1980, the one in Nairobi in 1985, the one in Beijing in 1995. Bucharest in 1974, Mexico City in 1984 and Cairo in 1994.
A respectable American lady, Dale O'Leary, attended these conferences and wrote a book that had a great impact: The Gender Agenda. She witnessed how a group of radical feminists manipulated the meetings and did everything they could to impose the gender agenda and dismantle the family. According to Dale O'Leary, “Proposers have an extreme aversion to words like mother, father, husband and wife. They refer to marriage and family in negative terms. Why does a UN document on women have almost nothing positive to say about women who are full-time mothers? Why does the UN, instead of promoting the gender perspective, not promote the women's perspective more?”
“The idea of the UN is to embed a gender perspective in every school, in every company, in every family, in every public and private program, at every level, and in every country.”
The author says that the radical feminist activists all base their arguments on Engels' book, already discussed here: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. In her words: “They are all Marxists. Every history is the history of the class struggle, the oppressor against the oppressed. See Kate Millet's book Sexual Politics and Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex. In these books I was able to understand how Marx's dialectic had become the dialectic of sex. As I read Engels and Firestone, I understood how the lyrics matched the music. There is a deep chasm between the public perception of feminism and the reality of feminist theory.”
”In these women's conferences, together with feminist activists, different groups of activists act, all committed to setting the gender agenda. They are: (1) population controllers; (2) sexual liberators; (3) gay rights activists; (4) the multi-culturalists and promoters of political correctness; (5) environmental extremists; (6) progressive neo-Marxists; (7) the deconstructive postmodernists.”
"Unfortunately, the UN has become captive to dangerous ideologues, who are using the organization's power and influence to further their dangerous schemes."
Conclusion
We close this topic with the opinion of a person who lived through the bowels of this globalist institution, the UN. Dale O'Leary states: “Radical and gender feminists started with Marxist analysis, but they moved in a completely different direction from economic and political Marxists. They are not working for a communist revolution, but for a cultural revolution. They want to bring down the family, not the state. Their enemies are not the bourgeois capitalists, but the 'puritans', the 'fundamentalists', the 'religious right' and the 'Holy See'. They promote victimology, the creation of new classes of the oppressed. They claim to be champions of justice and equity, but their style of justice and equity only applies to those they consider oppressed. Furthermore, when these neo-Marxists reach positions of power, they rarely respect the rights of those who disagree with them.”
Ms. Dale O'Leary, an authority on the subject, concludes: “When society encourages sexual coexistence outside of marriage – abortion, divorce and the contraceptive mentality – the first victims are women. The ongoing gender class struggle will not lead to the authentic liberation of women. A wrong anthropology, which denies the differences between the sexes, leaves women in an unenviable situation: either they seek to imitate male behavior, or they lose energy to transform men into 'pseudo-women'. Large sums of money are spent fighting a woman's natural desires to be a mother. It is obvious that gender ideology leads to a dead end.”
Father Paulo Ricardo says:
“All of these family destruction agents we've talked about have invested in one thing: knowledge. If we want to win the battle against them and defend the family, we also need to invest in knowledge and intellectual formation. Studying these authors, we understand that, if so many have attacked the family - with the 'lightning divorce', with sex without commitment, with the abolition of parents' parties in schools, etc. – not because society has spontaneously gone mad, but because there are very well-prepared social architects behind all these things.”
Comment: I have followed the trajectory of Father Paulo Ricardo for more than twenty years. Nothing too constant. I occasionally see one of his articles or videos on Youtube. Paulo Ricardo is an Orthodox Catholic priest. He is completely dedicated to preaching the gospel and is totally devoted to the Virgin Mary. Despite this, Father Paulo Ricardo is completely attuned to what is happening in the society in which we live. He has total lucidity in dealing with secular matters. And he doesn't shy away from a good debate. I have a good example in him.
In this short text that we reproduced above, he gives us valuable advice. It's no use just criticizing and saying, "Kali-yuga is advancing." If we want to defend our children and grandchildren, we have to know very well the strategy of those who want to manipulate and corrupt our children's minds. The knowledge of who wants our harm is fundamental. This knowledge will not be gained through universities and the formal media. We have to find the people and credible sources who are on the lookout for all the macabre manoeuvres.
The progressive agenda, which advocates, among other things, abortion liberalization, gender ideology, the sexualization of children and drug liberation, is a revolutionary atheist movement of a demonic nature. The people involved, who dedicate their lives exclusively to this cause, are willing to do whatever is necessary to attract more and more minds to the realization of their sinister plans. The danger is in being lured into the charming guise of postmodernism. But one who has Krishna consciousness as his “beacon” can very easily detect where the danger lies in the guise of “civilizational advancement”. It is sad to see some devotees being attracted and enticed.
Prabhupada and abortion
Srila Prabhupada: The fact is that a child is considered to be born as soon as a woman becomes pregnant. Pregnancy means that the child has already been born. How can they say there is no child? What is this nonsense? Why do we say she is 'pregnant'? This means that the child has already been born. Therefore, I say that this abortion issue is a great aberration of nature.
Back to Godhead Magazine: This philosophy behind the worldwide practice of abortion is demoralizing and vicious. Having been taught that the embryo is not really a living being but just a mass of inanimate chemicals, people were convinced to mercilessly kill their unborn children inside the womb.
Srila Prabhupada: A woman who indulges in abortion, killing the baby in the womb, will be placed in a womb in her next life, and someone will kill her. No matter how many babies she has killed, she will have to accept so many lives and be killed. So for hundreds of years it will be impossible to see the light of day. She will have to remain in the womb and will be killed repeatedly. People do not know the laws of nature.
Teachings of Lord Kapila: People who support abortion think they can alleviate suffering by killing the child inside the womb. In this way, many women are committing one sin after another and becoming more and more entangled. Consequently, the aborted living being will have to enter the uterus of another mother in order to have the birth for which it is destined. Upon entering another mother's womb, he can be killed again, and for many years he does not see sunlight. In this Kali-yuga people are becoming so sinful that there is no possibility of redemption unless one accepts Krishna consciousness.
To finish
Before someone accuses me of being a 'fundamentalist' I must say that despite being from an older generation and being a sannyasi, I am very aware and attentive to what is happening today in this corrupt society. In my position, it is my duty to warn the members of Prabhupada's mission of the dangers devotees are subject to. We will not remain passive and alienated, oblivious to the danger that surrounds them. While directing our devotion to Krishna, we must remain alert to the dangers of this world.
Please see the following video on Youtube which has gone viral on the Internet. LGBT militancy opens the game, title: We want to destroy the family, reveals LGBT activist. (the video is in portuguese, but you can easily put subtitles in your language directly from the youtube controls)
Comment: One might think that the video in question, which was highly viral on the Internet, was made at an event between activists for the cause. Not. It was a four-day event organized by the powerful institution Sesc São Paulo, at the seminar “Collapsed Democracy?” The audience's applause reaction shows that it is our society that is collapsing.
I'll also leave a video of a very lucid Christian youtuber who clearly exposes on this topic. We devotees can better understand the reality of this world and the nature of people because we have knowledge of the law of karma.
See, please, or the following video on Youtube, title: LGBT assume: “WE WANT TO DESTROY FAMILY, YES”. (the video is in portuguese, but you can easily put subtitles in your language directly from the youtube controls)
One might argue, "But why talk about communism and all these aberrations when he could be describing the nectar of Krishna-katha?" I answer: “There is time for everything. We cannot be naive and passive, because Kali-yuga is advancing and dominating everything. This information that we give in this text intends to try to save our youth, our sons, our children, our children and grandchildren from the influence of the diabolical mentality of modern times. That is my sole purpose. It's worth the risk of exposing myself. I hope you will accept this service that I do to the Vaishnava community.
English
Español
Pусский
Português
